High Court Judgment (John Downey)

David Simpson Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I apologise to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) for missing the first few minutes of his speech. Thankfully, he spoke for half an hour so I was able to hear most of it.

I was part of the team that approached the Backbench Business Committee to ask for this debate. Up to that point we had had only an hour of discussion in the House of Commons when I tabled the urgent question on 26 February. This debate is useful because an urgent question does not allow the House full discussion.

Since 2010 the Select Committee has tended to concentrate on economic issues. We have looked at corporation tax, air passenger duty, fuel laundering and smuggling and the amounts of money being lost. We have touched on the armed forces covenant, and we are coming to the end of an inquiry into the structure of banking in Northern Ireland. In other words, we have tried to help to regenerate the economy in Northern Ireland, believing that to be very important for the prosperity of the people who live there, and with a view to attempting to cement the peace that has been achieved over the past 16 years or so. I am sure Committee members would have been happy to take that policy forward towards the next general election. However, that changed on 25 February.

Speaking for myself, I was not aware of any such scheme. I was obviously aware that the John Downey case was being considered as I got a telephone call that day explaining the judgment and letting me know the background to it. It came as a complete surprise to me that there was any such thing as an administrative scheme. It was a big surprise because in 2005 through to January 2006 I led for the Conservative party on the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which attempted to grant an amnesty across the board. It was the realisation that that amnesty went across the board that caused Sinn Fein to stop supporting the Bill, and the Bill was subsequently withdrawn. I received a telephone from the then Minister of State, who asked to see me. He informed me that the Government were, in his words, pulling the Bill. There was no support for it and it was not going to happen.

I was not aware at that point or earlier or up to 25 February that there was any other way of dealing with the so-called on-the-runs. The Select Committee found itself in a changed position after 25 February. I have never known the members of that Committee to be so exercised over any issue as they have been over this, which has persuaded us to launch an inquiry into the background to this scheme and everything connected with it, despite the fact that there is a judge-led inquiry appointed by the Government, which we welcome, and an inquiry is being held by the Justice Committee in the Assembly, the leader of which I met just the other day. Both inquiries are welcome, and we will probably concentrate on different areas.

We start with the case itself and a stay being put on the case. We have taken legal advice on the matter. I am advised that the Government cannot appeal a stay. That was the advice that I received just yesterday. I would be glad to hear the Secretary of State’s response to that because it seems an extraordinary judgment that possession of a letter can take on greater importance than a murder charge. I make no suggestion as to whether Mr Downey is guilty or innocent. That is not the role of a politician and I do not have the facts to hand. But a murder charge was made—in fact, a charge of multiple murder and injury—yet possession of a letter appeared to assume greater importance than that charge. I find that very surprising indeed.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a possibility that the letters in the Downey case may not have been sufficient in themselves without political influence?

[Mr Robertson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is a valuable member of the Select Committee and I am grateful to him for his support on this and many other issues. The point he makes is correct. Not being a lawyer myself, I cannot make a judgment on whether that is normal. My suggestion is that perhaps it is not normal. I understood courts always to look at the facts before them, but in this case the court seems to have relied on this letter, which concentrated on the fact that the PSNI did not want to question Mr Downey. It said only that in the PSNI’s belief no other police force in the United Kingdom wanted to question him—it was not a categorical assurance. That letter, weak and flimsy though it may sound, seems to have taken on a greater importance because of the political process. I would be the first to say that it is very important that we do not unravel the peace process or undo the enormous achievements in Northern Ireland, but the rule of law applies here, as well as the separation of powers between the Executive, Parliament and the courts, which has to be observed. I suggest that all the inquiries have that as the central motivation behind their opening.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simpson]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the royal pardons and royal prerogatives. Does he agree that, apart from all the letters that were issued, the greatest insult to the victims and to the people of Northern Ireland is that royal pardons were given to people who were potentially murderers or bombers?

[Nigel Mills]

It clearly is an insult. I will leave it to the hon. Gentleman to decide whether it is the greatest insult. I am not a victim, I was not involved and I do not live in Northern Ireland.

I can fully understand that to achieve peace people on all sides had to hold their noses and swallow some things they really did not want to swallow. Perhaps this is something that people ought to have had to swallow. Perhaps we should have been transparent and said, “Look, there can’t be any peace without some solution on on-the-runs.” Perhaps that should have been in the Belfast agreement, and perhaps it should have been in the referendum. It was not, however, and that means that it should not have happened. It should either be there, with everyone knowing about it and accepting it, or it should not be done. The secrecy is perhaps one of the greatest insults: justice has been circumvented in secret.

What I cannot get over is why this process was entered into. Why did the process exist? Why would Sinn Fein want the process and apply for letters unless everybody involved believed that it conferred some right or new situation whereby one would no longer be prosecuted for something one would otherwise be prosecuted for? I have no reason to go on the run and I am not aware that I have done anything that would require me to go on the run—

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It is good to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). I agree with everything he has said, and it was said with great passion.

The day that the Downey case fell in the courts in the Old Bailey was a very sad day indeed for British justice. Not only was a terrorist released on to the streets again, but the families who had lost loved ones were left with no recourse, because the Government have said there is no course of appeal, and the old wounds were all opened up again.

The exposure of the on-the-runs—or OTRs—administrative scheme and royal prerogatives was a stab in the heart of our British values of justice. The entire scheme was based upon a lie. Its creators claim that the early release scheme in the 1998 Good Friday agreement created an anomaly for those who were on the run. It did no such thing.

There were many fundamental problems with the Belfast agreement, and that is why the Democratic Unionist party rejected it and negotiated the new St Andrews agreement. However, it did have a clear mechanism for dealing with pre-1998 offences. A person could be brought before the court, receive a fair trial and if convicted, serve time in jail. The sentence would have been a mere two years, thanks to the likes of the Ulster Unionist party and the Progressive Unionist party, who signed the 1998 pact, but victims would at least have had their day in court and an opportunity for justice to be done.

This conspiracy drew in a range of our institutions by acts of commission and omission. Parliament was bypassed and misled. The legislation for OTRs at that stage was withdrawn because it was unwanted, both by Parliament and by the public. It was rejected because it was repugnant, but at least it offered some level of oversight and licensing to prevent reoffending. The scheme that the Government and the Northern Ireland Office came up with did none of that. Their contempt for Parliament included deliberately misleading it, and all the political parties except Sinn Fein, on how they were dealing with the OTRs.

[Lady Hermon]

Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to confirm that although all the parties objected to the obnoxious Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, the Government in power at the time would have pushed it through this House had it not been for Sinn Fein belatedly registering its opposition to it? It was dropped because of Sinn Fein’s opposition, not the overwhelming opposition of the general public, RUC widows and others.

[David Simpson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right.

No unionist would be surprised by the role the Northern Ireland Office at the time had in the design and implementation of the scheme. At the time, its pandering to republicanism and its contempt for Unionism and its representatives were a permanent feature of direct rule. However, it drew the Police Service of Northern Ireland into its dirty deals as well. In a question to the assistant chief constable—I believe it was Assistant Chief Constable Harris—my colleague on the Policing Board, Mr Thomas Buchanan, asked about the OTRs. The PSNI’s response was this:

“At this moment in time, there are no on the runs we are aware of residing in Northern Ireland, and if there was information to suggest there were individuals who are wanted for crime living within this jurisdiction, then we would be very anxious to learn of that.”

That was in 2010. That gave the impression that there was a desire to catch criminals, but the scheme was doing exactly the opposite.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend knows that the former deputy chair of the Policing Board, Mr Bradley, has publicly stated that the board was briefed about the on-the-runs and knew all about it. Will my hon. Friend go further today and dismiss that as a fantasy?

[David Simpson]

Yes, I certainly will. It was an absolute fantasy, as the evidence that has come from Policing Board representatives over the past few weeks confirms.

At the same time the OTR scheme was running, the PSNI established the Historical Enquiries Team. It was supposed to be a systematic approach to give every victim the opportunity for justice. The OTR scheme now draws a long shadow over all the HET’s work. Some will conclude that as one section of the PSNI tried to put people before a court, another was helping them to avoid it.

I will not speak for long, because I know that many other Members wish to speak.

[Lady Hermon]

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

[David Simpson]

I apologise to the hon. Lady, but I want to move on and so will not give way, because many Members wish to speak.

The constituency I represent, as those who know Northern Ireland will understand, has a big contingent of security force personnel, both past and present. I know from my discussions with those individuals and organisations that they are totally disgusted by this scheme. Their attitude is that it took courage to put on the uniform of the Crown forces to defend the people and Northern Ireland, and if someone in their organisations stepped out of line, the full rigour of the law was brought upon them, and rightly so, they emphasised. But there are people who have been on the run and who went away on their holidays, and they were on the run because they were conscious of what they had done, and they got letters to give them reprieve. There is one law for one organisation and one law for another. It is despicable. It has opened a can of worms.

My last point is about the royal prerogatives. It would be interesting to discover who has received the royal prerogatives. Has Mr McGuinness? Has Mr Adams? Has Mr Kelly? I will go further. As the House knows, and as I have mentioned before, a number of members of my family were assassinated by the IRA. Have some of the people who carried out those murders received the royal prerogatives? It is disgusting. It is wrong. The victims out there are suffering. We promised them justice, but a lot of them will never see it. I am glad that both inquiries have now opened. We look forward to the Select Committee inquiry, which will go into every nook and cranny. We will, at some stage, discover who initiated this and when. We will discover who allowed this to happen.